Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Nov 23, 2014 at 01:39 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 2 round mock has us taking a CB in the first  (Read 1886 times)
LambertsFrontTeeth
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1617
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,462



« Reply #10 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 05:48 »

Well, since we are ...

                        yeh yeh OFFICIALLY  yeh yeh

picking 32nd....


After last night's game, I've revised my belief that we should address both OL and DL in the first 2 rounds. And scrap any value-at-DB in round 1. Those turds on the OL could not manage (AGAIN) to get us in the end-zone on short and goal twice. That made the game much, much closer than it needed to be. Having better depth at tackle and guard may convince BA's replacement to remove Spaeth from those dreaded 3 TE formations. He can't block for shit.

I think we just draft the best 3 OL on the board with our first 3 picks. I don't think one single starter on that line should feel safe in this current offseason. I'd be happy if we could replace them all.

That being said, don't want to seem too negative. WAY TO GO STEELERS!!!  headbang headbang
Logged

"Dreith said I hit Sipe too hard. I hit him as hard as I could. Brian has a chance to go out of bounds and he decides not to. He knows I'm going to hit him. And I do. History."
- - - Jack Lambert, after referee Ben Dreith ejected him from a game for knocking out Browns QB Brian Sipe.
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11364
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,823


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: Feb 02, 2009 at 07:12 »

Agreed.  Draft OL early and often.
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
DCSteelers
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 553
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,460


WWW
« Reply #12 on: Feb 09, 2009 at 13:37 »

I could see a 1st round CB if McFadden is not resigned.  William Gay taking over the starting duties for 2009.

If Nate is not resigned, they'll have to figure out what to do w/WR.  Hines/Santonio/Sweed ..Huh??

Otherwise, OL/DL for the first 3 rounds.

On the D side, Eason and Hoke will make suitable backups for another year at least, giving enough time to groom these picks for 2010.  They're going to have to make a decision on what to do for nose guard in this years draft.  I don't know, and leaning against the team re-upping Snacks. 2010 would be his 10th year.

OL is another mystery and somethings will be answered in FA- they have to be.  We know that Hartwig, Stapleton, Simmons, and Colon will indeed be back with Legursky in the mix too.  I favor the solution of re-upping Hartwig, moving Colon to a guard spot, re-upping Max to go back to RT, and drafting or Signing a franchise LT.  We're stuck with Simmons as a guard starter any way you slice it.
Logged
Steelerdipwad
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3673
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,656



« Reply #13 on: Feb 09, 2009 at 15:27 »

They're going to have to make a decision on what to do for nose guard in this years draft.  I don't know, and leaning against the team re-upping Snacks. 2010 would be his 10th year.

I see a lot of people saying the same thing. I don't see it that way. NT is not a position where players just decline rapidly when they reach his age. Since the big boys can still be effective when they get a little older and a little bigger, he could be playing at just about his current efectiveness level for the next five years. Look at Rodgers. And guys with his skill set don't hit the market that often. I'd go out of my way to sign him to another five years.
Logged

"Fanatics are picturesque. Mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reason." - Friederich Nietzsche
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,377



« Reply #14 on: Feb 09, 2009 at 15:43 »

They're going to have to make a decision on what to do for nose guard in this years draft.  I don't know, and leaning against the team re-upping Snacks. 2010 would be his 10th year.

I see a lot of people saying the same thing. I don't see it that way. NT is not a position where players just decline rapidly when they reach his age. Since the big boys can still be effective when they get a little older and a little bigger, he could be playing at just about his current efectiveness level for the next five years. Look at Rodgers. And guys with his skill set don't hit the market that often. I'd go out of my way to sign him to another five years.

I think they'll do a short-termer, convert some cap to bonus and tack on a couple of years.  Unfortunately, I think Snacks's play has not been as crisp the last couple of years, unless someone pisses him off.  He's gotten handled by single teams more often, and I see him getting tossed aside in the slop like he never did before.  IMO, the conditioning showdown with Tomlin wasn't all for show.  And Hokie had a nice fill-in when Hamp was injured, but that was a while ago now, and I wonder if he'd be all that effective if called on for a major stint.

Put it this way, in addition to Hamp (will be 32) and Hokie (will be 33), why did we bother keeping Scott Paxson as a #3 NT, if there wasn't some concern?

I'd like to see us draft a DE in R1-3, with Smith (will be 33) and Keisel (will be 31) both having had injuries the past two years, and depth/youth an ongoing question.  In fact, I think we could upgrade Keisel some.  Then, maybe around R4 or later, add a small-school NT, at the very least to push the depth issue, and perhaps see if he can develop into a starter and anchor the line in a couple of years.  And since we'll have an extra R7, I'd throw in a late project DE as well, just for kicks.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!